Brooks Newmark "Entrapment"

[FloraFox]

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion "she" asked him to send her the photo, is there?

So simply being an attractive young woman and complimenting national politicians on twitter is "entrapping" men into sending photos of their genitals?

Puffins yes that's the one.

I'm out

Fuckin' see ya.

I think Empire came back?

Ooh! The resident potty-mouth heckler has graced us with her presence

This has descended into one of those, 'my Mum's a bigger feminist than yours' debates as if the veracity of any matter lies other than in actual facts and logic.

I wouldn't disagree with the idea that a senior politician (of any gender) should be ever mindful of the power imbalance between themselves and any junior colleague or supporter and always behave appropriately - regardless of how the junior person behaves.

But I seriously take issue with the attitude that this 'appallingly immoral journalism' (to borrow from Flora) is in any way justified by the assumption that Newmark was very probably sleazy anyway.

If Sophie Whittams had been a real woman and had approached Newmark to talk about this Women2win malarky and he had (eventually) moved on to "let's discuss it over a drink ... ooh the bar's very noisy ... let's go somewhere quieter" or other typical sleazeball behaviour, then I would say, yes, absolutely - 'hang' the bastard (HtB)

Similarly, if, (similar to the Rennard case) the Mirror/GF were saying "we've got testimony from 3 women, who need to conceal their identities, so we'll refer to them Ms X, Ms Y and Ms Z, that Newmark has done this, that and the other - so we thought we would test whether he generally does this kind of thing", then again I would say, yes they had good cause.

Maybe they were hoping that if they performed this entrapment, then other women would come forward, like in (I think) all the Yewtree cases. Maybe they will, and that will change everything.

But on the tangible evidence we have so far, absolutely no women were involved in this entrapment, except the ones who were used as sex objects without their consent.

Under the IPSO rules, entrapment is only justified when there is no other way to get the evidence.

Was that the case here? Absolutely fucking not! (unless of course, it was a requirement of the investigation that no women could take part )

If Newmark is as sleazy as they claim, then it would be pretty easy to trap him.

Completely off the top of my head, here's one way - refine as you wish.

1. find a real woman volunteer (ideally young and attractive)

1. get her to pretend to be a tory (OK I accept this is the difficult bit)

1. Get her to do all the social networking stuff, going to BN public meetings etc

1. Wait for him to make his move.

Because if the claims are true, does anybody really believe that he wouldn't?

With all the abuse cases that Flora mentions, getting the perpetrator to act wasn't the problem - it was getting someone to listen to the victims.

This was a botched operation by Wickham. His amateurish approach and lack of ethics over the use of the pictures may well be pointers to his lack of competence and ethics with respect to the whole operation.

I must admit - I have a really really intense dislike of entrapment. I guess that's just a cultural bias of mine.

G'night all.
Pearl.

To be clear, I didn't say it was "appallingly immoral journalism" someone else did. I don't think it was, as far as it relates to Newmark as I think the entrapment was justified to expose the behaviour. I also don't see it makes a difference that the journalist was a man. The scenario you describe could just as easily be unjustified entrapment, just more convoluted and putting a real woman at risk.

Yonic I think gin was talking to why, who also flounced after the return of Empire.

I continue to be astonished at the outrage on display about this sting.

Let's just review the central premise of the OP:

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion "she" asked him to send her the photo, is there?

CagedBird, hi again. Wondered what your view was on my question which x-posted with you saying you are going?

Would be ace if we could move back to discussing the case more generally...

Agree re image use being awful - did the images come from sources like porn sites?

Empire it is possible to care about two issues separately and in different ways. I have already said I don't agree with him using those photographs. Don't forget though that it was not the Mirror that published them to the general public, it was other newspapers and also the legal blogger linked above by you. It really has nothing to do with the wrong doing of Brooks Newmark. I'm not defending the journalist's use of the pictures and I think you are reaching here for something to attack me with as this should be very clear from a basic reading of what I have written.

I didn't say anyone here is defending Newmark. I said minimising, deflecting, dissembling, whataboutery and dismissing his behaviour compared with the outrage expressed at the entrapment by the journalist.

It seems your view of one of the actions is clouding your view of the other. Are you really not able to see past the issue of the use of the photographs to apply some critical thinking to the behaviour of a Cabinet Office minister?

why you lost yourself at "this is not a feminist issue".

Yonic, again my view was at the beginning: he could be exploitative, but this is not demonstrated by this case due to the obvious encouragement. His resignation, however, is appropriate.

I've lost myself have I? Great that, from someone's whose initial assessment has proved to be incorrect. Or are you still standing by that?

Oh, I never learn. There's just something morbidly fascinating about watching someone attempt to justify their own mistakes.

why yes you did.

It is still clear Newmark initiated the private conversation and it is still clear he sent the picture. Yes it does seem the journalist encouraged him to send it although to what extent is not clear.

Regardless, you seem incapable of understanding that even with all the information as it currently stands, Brooks Newmark is not fit to hold office, not because he is stupid and left himself susceptible to blackmail but because he used his position to try to get sexual photos and to try to meet someone he thought was a young ambitious Tory activist. You'd have to be incredibly naive to think he wasn't planning on having sex with her or trying.

You have added nothing of interest to this discussion, just maintained a sort of heckling side commentary. It is a feminist discussion board after all.

In the context of Rennard and other scandals and the difficult in getting evidence of wrong doing by these men, the out of hand dismissal by the mainstream press and some on here of a public interest issue based on the entitlement of all women not to be treated like sexual objects by men in the course of carrying out public office warrants feminist analysis.

empire you're right, I forgot you said this:

I'm saying that if a man receives flirty, then sexual, then explicit messages from a woman who seems interested in him, he's not totally off-beam if he thinks they are in a relationship of sorts and responds in kind.

I stand corrected. You did defend him and I did say you did.